This is a great update that helps modmakers a lot, but most importantly it prepares the LFS for a really big update which I'm really looking forward to.
To be honest, I wasn't that interested in this topic and I started it for the sake of getting different opinions, and for the sake of that the method of coming up with contradictory arguments to fuel the discussion is well suited, which turned out to be quite good in terms of quantity, but bad in terms of quality.. Whell, I guess you wouldn't expect anything else in such a politicized topic.
But now its just I happened to find that in August of this year there was an declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency.
"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adap"
And literally what I was talking about was the excessive bias and politicization of research... About temperature cycles... About the greenhouse effect helping nature...
And there's also the fact that the death rate from climate-related events has dropped more than 10 times in the last 100 years, (picture attached) while green left-liberals continue to hysterical about the catastrophic effects of climate change on humans. Of course part of that may be due to increased medical care, but clearly not by 10 times.
Regarding bias and politicization in scientific research, there is an excellent article "I Left Out the Full Truth..." by a climate scientist on how the mechanisms of politicization and bias arise in scientific research. Here are some quotes from the article:
"Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades."
"Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic..."
"This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change."
"Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change."
I mean, literally what I was talking about. BBut unfortunately, a lot of people, instead of accepting the problem and moving toward a solution, or at least looking out of their echo chamber, just continue to hysterical and biased about climate change as if nothing is happening.
And don't make another strawmans to argue with it, cuz I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening or it's not that I'm against many of the methods of fighting climate change, I can be in favor of them, especially those that limit the emissions of large corporations and companies.
It's just that you don't need to add your agenda to the science here because at that moment science stops being science.
But now its just I happened to find that in August of this year there was an declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency.
"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adap"
And literally what I was talking about was the excessive bias and politicization of research... About temperature cycles... About the greenhouse effect helping nature...
And there's also the fact that the death rate from climate-related events has dropped more than 10 times in the last 100 years, (picture attached) while green left-liberals continue to hysterical about the catastrophic effects of climate change on humans. Of course part of that may be due to increased medical care, but clearly not by 10 times.
Regarding bias and politicization in scientific research, there is an excellent article "I Left Out the Full Truth..." by a climate scientist on how the mechanisms of politicization and bias arise in scientific research. Here are some quotes from the article:
"Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades."
"Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic..."
"This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change."
"Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change."
I mean, literally what I was talking about. BBut unfortunately, a lot of people, instead of accepting the problem and moving toward a solution, or at least looking out of their echo chamber, just continue to hysterical and biased about climate change as if nothing is happening.
And don't make another strawmans to argue with it, cuz I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening or it's not that I'm against many of the methods of fighting climate change, I can be in favor of them, especially those that limit the emissions of large corporations and companies.
It's just that you don't need to add your agenda to the science here because at that moment science stops being science.
Your posts from May, since then the AI has been improved, including behavior in pits.
Why we cant hold a proper NASCAR like racing on Oval in LFS? And how to fix it.
I was thinking about how to hold NASCAR like event in the LFS, and even some time ago I tried to do some test races on an oval with xrg (because there is no other way)
Yes, our oval is quite small, and it is impossible to hold superspeedway-type competitions on it. But it is still possible to have small races like in Nascar. So, what prevents the holding of a proper NASCAR racing? And there are two main reasons.
1. Netcode algorithm. (which is responsible for collisions and for displaying the positioning, rotation and speed vectors of cars online) It does not allow to do predictable bump drafting. (when car pulls up behind the lead car and bumps into the rear of it, pushing the lead car ahead, to maintain momentum, and cars pack going faster) We tried bumpdrafting, but even on slow xrg but it's still too hard to do bump drafting, I was only able to do it on video when I found someone with a low ping who could hold the car well but still sometimes the cars bounces away unpredictably. And it's even harder on faster cars. But the laps when it got good were about a second faster than those going without bumpdrafting. So it's too good a technique not to use it.
Especially you can't form close packs of cars when they're travelling within centimetres of each other. Because if someone lags a bit, one goes through the other for a second - laghit and there's a domino effect and all the cars just fly away.
2. Aerodynamic model. There is no side-drafting effect in LFS. (When a car races alongside another car and “dumps” air flow from that car's nose to the spoiler of the other car, causing the other car to lose momentum and allowing the side-drafting car to pull away. This allows for occasional overtaking on the outside line braking the inside cars of side drafting.)
We know there's a slipstream model in the LFS. But it's not always clear how it working. Is it just a cube directly behind the car that has discharged air in it? Then it wouldn't work properly in the corners. Because the angle of the car behind will be different and this cube will go sideways. In reality, the car forms a path of rarefied air where it passed.
Also not clear if drafting in LFS allows the car in front to go faster? And if it does, does it only work for two cars? Or will multi-car packs go faster than two cars in drafting? We tried to test this but it's too difficult to do so for the netcode reasons, and the results aren't consistent to be sure.
Of course there are other reasons that we have only a relatively small oval, that there is no full-fledged safety car bot, that there is no system caution flag and yellow flags like in nascar, and splits, (although it can be done insim) as well as limited tyre changes, aerodynamics damage system, engine heating and cooling by air flow (this is a big problem when driving in a dense pack, and on this cars sometimes a little out of the pack that the radiator would get some air).
But the main reasons are that you can not fight for positions in close packs. And nascar racing is all about that. And for that we need to at least fix the netcode and fix the aerodynamic model in LFS.
Yes, our oval is quite small, and it is impossible to hold superspeedway-type competitions on it. But it is still possible to have small races like in Nascar. So, what prevents the holding of a proper NASCAR racing? And there are two main reasons.
1. Netcode algorithm. (which is responsible for collisions and for displaying the positioning, rotation and speed vectors of cars online) It does not allow to do predictable bump drafting. (when car pulls up behind the lead car and bumps into the rear of it, pushing the lead car ahead, to maintain momentum, and cars pack going faster) We tried bumpdrafting, but even on slow xrg but it's still too hard to do bump drafting, I was only able to do it on video when I found someone with a low ping who could hold the car well but still sometimes the cars bounces away unpredictably. And it's even harder on faster cars. But the laps when it got good were about a second faster than those going without bumpdrafting. So it's too good a technique not to use it.
Especially you can't form close packs of cars when they're travelling within centimetres of each other. Because if someone lags a bit, one goes through the other for a second - laghit and there's a domino effect and all the cars just fly away.
2. Aerodynamic model. There is no side-drafting effect in LFS. (When a car races alongside another car and “dumps” air flow from that car's nose to the spoiler of the other car, causing the other car to lose momentum and allowing the side-drafting car to pull away. This allows for occasional overtaking on the outside line braking the inside cars of side drafting.)
We know there's a slipstream model in the LFS. But it's not always clear how it working. Is it just a cube directly behind the car that has discharged air in it? Then it wouldn't work properly in the corners. Because the angle of the car behind will be different and this cube will go sideways. In reality, the car forms a path of rarefied air where it passed.
Also not clear if drafting in LFS allows the car in front to go faster? And if it does, does it only work for two cars? Or will multi-car packs go faster than two cars in drafting? We tried to test this but it's too difficult to do so for the netcode reasons, and the results aren't consistent to be sure.
Of course there are other reasons that we have only a relatively small oval, that there is no full-fledged safety car bot, that there is no system caution flag and yellow flags like in nascar, and splits, (although it can be done insim) as well as limited tyre changes, aerodynamics damage system, engine heating and cooling by air flow (this is a big problem when driving in a dense pack, and on this cars sometimes a little out of the pack that the radiator would get some air).
But the main reasons are that you can not fight for positions in close packs. And nascar racing is all about that. And for that we need to at least fix the netcode and fix the aerodynamic model in LFS.
This is completely okay, you have already made so much needed improvements in this test patch that will greatly improve default cars, mods and LFS Editor! It's a great work, I think everyone agrees that you deserve to take some time off and do something you want to do besides constantly coding some uptades for LFS. Thank you for your work!
That's cool, hopefully it will work.
Btw I had an idea to do the muffler vibration after ignition. I made it via spinner with the axis of rotation along the muffler with a small offset, but it dont working well, because my muffler is textured and the rotation is noticeable. It would be cool if the slider would have a constant repeat position function, so that you could make the vibration. It would also be convenient if it were possible to adjust the oscillation frequency.
These are great ideas, and we can have anticipated good animations. A moving slider is great too, it would be possible to make more complex animations. Just as a movement from point 1 to point 2 and you could make spoilers go up for example. It's good that the headlights gave you these ideas. But the main animation that is missing is gear shifting, but it's probably too hard to do because it involves more complex gearbox mechanics and that can require more than one movement and the driver's hand animation. Probably it will be too difficult to implement, so it's better to to put this on the back burner, so as not to waste your valuable time. But the handbrake also requires a driver animation (are there also new animations for the driver?).
2 suggestions:
1. Add the same animated collision objects (for example you can make them minimal of 6 faces as a cube or 12 triangles (if its to hard to calculate) to open the doors, hood, trunk. etc. They need collision, otherwise it looks bad when other cars or objects pass through the open doors. (At the end, it would be cool if, it would be possible to link them with sub-objects, and that after the impact could break off and have physics that would break off open doors and get a more detailed model of damage.)
And then those things will really work and interact with the environment.
2. Make chains of movements that after animation 1, animation 2 can be played, etc. (Not so important as a collision, but if it is not difficult to implement it would be cool,) This would make it possible to make complex mechanisms and different machines like excavators, cranes, etc.
Of course I understand that because of the complexity of my suggestions or because of the time it will take to implement it is possible that it will not be implemented, this is just as a suggestion for the future. Now we all understand that the version with graphics and physics is expected by all and is a top priority after this patch.
Thank you for your work and for your new creative ideas!
Yes, why not. It will be useful.
Yeah, gta4 definitely had better physics and some game mechanics.
I’m not switching anything, the topic on the issue of applied ethics is also interesting to me, and I'm waiting for someone to answer me something reasonable.
But GTA 5 was a whole gaming era. But the physics in GTA 4, in my opinion, was better, and I would like to see someting like that or better in GTA 6.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
I watched the trailer many times and I was worried it may be a render, and not a gameplay video in any way. (atleast in some scenes) On the other hand, Rockstar's singularity has always been that they made video trailers from the game.
My four take on this. Hair, smoke, details, post-effects.
The work of light and the level of reflections in puddles and glossy surfaces were also amazing, but with hired technologies like PTX this is possible
Hair.
I think many of us have already seen in games the visually correct dynamic behavior of hair relative to the inertia of the character’s movements. (according to the behavior of soft bodies)
But I have never seen a good collision of hair with items of clothing and body. Here you can see how the hair reacts correctly to the body during the animation.
Smoke
Apparently, volumetric are involved here, and it is also dynamic, i.e. This is either a simulation or some kind of complex shader. You can also notice that volumetrics respond correctly to light sources. You can see how the car's headlights illuminate smoke.
Amount of details.
Just look at this, I'm sure it's a pre-made scene, debris on the asphalt, broken glass, liquid, crumpled impact on the guardrail, crumpled barrels (although it's possible that it's is okay because it's part of a local news program, and they need some pre-made scene for that)
Quantity and quality of dirt texture on the skin and on clothes.
Detailing of debris underfoot. You can also notice the potholes, the asphalt in which grass grows in the cracks, the amount of detail is amazing.
Post-effects.
A huge number of cinimatic post-effects are not needed for the game, but they were probably made only for the trailer. Depth of field, bloom, glare, clipping light, motion blur (even on characters like on hands of dirt woman), chromatic aberration, etc. Although these post-effects maybe will be added in some kind of screenshot mode. Alya selfie on the phone camera.
Dof blur
Boom, light glares, clipping light.
I won't add everything, I think these effects are already noticeable.
I just have doubts that this will all work on consoles. But still, but I hope that all this will be in the game because it looks very juicy.
My four take on this. Hair, smoke, details, post-effects.
The work of light and the level of reflections in puddles and glossy surfaces were also amazing, but with hired technologies like PTX this is possible
Hair.
I think many of us have already seen in games the visually correct dynamic behavior of hair relative to the inertia of the character’s movements. (according to the behavior of soft bodies)
But I have never seen a good collision of hair with items of clothing and body. Here you can see how the hair reacts correctly to the body during the animation.
Smoke
Apparently, volumetric are involved here, and it is also dynamic, i.e. This is either a simulation or some kind of complex shader. You can also notice that volumetrics respond correctly to light sources. You can see how the car's headlights illuminate smoke.
Amount of details.
Just look at this, I'm sure it's a pre-made scene, debris on the asphalt, broken glass, liquid, crumpled impact on the guardrail, crumpled barrels (although it's possible that it's is okay because it's part of a local news program, and they need some pre-made scene for that)
Quantity and quality of dirt texture on the skin and on clothes.
Detailing of debris underfoot. You can also notice the potholes, the asphalt in which grass grows in the cracks, the amount of detail is amazing.
Post-effects.
A huge number of cinimatic post-effects are not needed for the game, but they were probably made only for the trailer. Depth of field, bloom, glare, clipping light, motion blur (even on characters like on hands of dirt woman), chromatic aberration, etc. Although these post-effects maybe will be added in some kind of screenshot mode. Alya selfie on the phone camera.
Dof blur
Boom, light glares, clipping light.
I won't add everything, I think these effects are already noticeable.
I just have doubts that this will all work on consoles. But still, but I hope that all this will be in the game because it looks very juicy.
Personally, I liked the realistic picture, good lighting work, сamera backlight effects like bloom, clipping light. Lots of different details, lots of different animals just in this trailer. Realistic faces and overall a realistic picture. I hope this trend of realism will continue in all aspects of the game, especially in physics.
New GTA 6 trailer, what do you think?
I think everyone here has been playing the gta series of games, and here is the trailer of the long awaited new part. Confirmed leaks that the main characters will be a loving couple of gangsters like Bonnie and Clyde, who are operating in a place with references to Vice City.
What do you think?
What do you think?
I understand that, and I'm not even trying to find someone who knows about philosophy and argumentation theory here (edit: i mean not anymore), maybe at least someone who can discuss without emotion, and just try to think about it with a cold head and rationalize their views, whatever they may be.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Can you communicate less.. emotionally?
So that's your business if that's what you decide? Convenient. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Where did I say what a woman should or shouldn't do? Please, let's avoid the strawman arguments...
Do you know the difference between a prescription and a description?
A descriptive statement captures something the way it is. A prescriptive statement details how something should be. I've never once written about what should be in this topic. But I was writing about the way it is.
And that's why you can't provide reasoning. Makes sense. (no)
It's in your mind. The first post says that the topic is made to support a reasoned argument on hot-topic. I don't care what position is being defended, I care about having arguments. I don't mind if my argument is false. I don't have support for the pro-life position. I came up with that argument just to warm up the discussion. I've written that repeatedly. But you are blinded by your rage...
A person who repeats left-liberal talking points accuses me of propaganda. That's interesting.
What kind of propanaganda am I exposed to? I'm really curious to hear the answer.
So that's your business if that's what you decide? Convenient. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Where did I say what a woman should or shouldn't do? Please, let's avoid the strawman arguments...
Do you know the difference between a prescription and a description?
A descriptive statement captures something the way it is. A prescriptive statement details how something should be. I've never once written about what should be in this topic. But I was writing about the way it is.
And that's why you can't provide reasoning. Makes sense. (no)
It's in your mind. The first post says that the topic is made to support a reasoned argument on hot-topic. I don't care what position is being defended, I care about having arguments. I don't mind if my argument is false. I don't have support for the pro-life position. I came up with that argument just to warm up the discussion. I've written that repeatedly. But you are blinded by your rage...
A person who repeats left-liberal talking points accuses me of propaganda. That's interesting.
What kind of propanaganda am I exposed to? I'm really curious to hear the answer.
What I get is emoticons, insults, unfounded theses. I get everything but reasoning. I don't care if you're pro-choice or pro-life. Give me some rationale. But there's only rage, only emotions.
I did this whole thread as an experiment to see if a reasoned conversation is possible here.
Apparently not... It's disappointing.
That's right, her body, her choice. It's a her choice what to do with her body. And so a human being can't decide what to do with another human being's. Especially if it concerns murder. This is a pro-life argument. So i do not understand why you're in favour of pro-choice. And why you talk in slogans without explaining anything. As if you're not capable of thinking with your own head, but only repeating someone else's agenda.
I could start a discussion, but since it affects you personally and your feelings, I wouldn't want to. But if you could take it apart from yourself, maybe a reasonable discussion could be had.
I didn't say my argument was correct, I just asked you to consider its premises. And I said I didn't have a clear position on the issue. I took a pro-life position to warm up the debate as stated in the first post. Instead, it was a spate of gratuitous insults. It's a shame to see this level of discourse. I expected something better than this.
Unfortunately, everyone here is thinking emotionally instead of rationally.
Unfortunately, everyone here is thinking emotionally instead of rationally.
I agree. Because of their feelings, people come up with mental constructs to assuage their feelings about abortion. And I don't see anything wrong with that if it only serves to help yourself, and doesn't go as spreading ideas to others.
But what does it mean to not take it lightly? I'm in favor of not bringing any feelings into this topic. I realize that's gonna be difficult for a lot of people. And maybe those who can't make it shouldn't discuss it. If we make decisions based on our feelings rather than on rationality. Could that be the problem?
And your argument is insults? Well, that's not surprising from someone who hasn't heard anything about argumentation theory. I brought in a deductive argument instead of describing my feelings and experiences.
And this isa racing games off topic forum. Where people discuss things like music, movies, news, wars, history, philosophy. This question is part of philosophical discourse. From applied ethics. If you can't say anything about it and bring atleast some meaning, then you shouldn't post here, because it's your posts that are out of place here.
As you wish. But only on the basis of these theses of yours, I could start a discussion on this topic, asking clarifying questions to get to the core of your position.
But instead you said, "End of discussion." That's your right. But why not try to have a discussion about it? I am ready to recognize good arguments of the interlocutor if they contradict mine. And if these arguments are stronger than mine, I will have to recognize that his position is stronger and makes more sense.
By the way, I originally held the prochoice position as well. Just because the environment imposed or just because of the zeitgeist. But when I was confronted with a really strong position that was hard to argue with, I just accepted it. And I improved my position.
In my opinion, it's always good to question your positions, even if you believe them to be true. That's the essence of critical thinking, to question your own beliefs in order to improve your views, if you do not do this, it will lead to stagnation, that's why I like reasoned discussions or debates and that's why I don't like when participants of these debates start using sophistry and various rhetorical tricks. Suppose you lost in this debate because the arguments of your interlocutor were stronger. What's wrong with that? Bad and good are just value judgments that essentially mean nothing. What matters is who gained new knowledge? The one who lost the debate and learned new arguments he hadn't thought of before has gained new knowledge. And the winner of the debate has gained nothing. So the real winner is the one who gained something, isn't he? in my opinion, the real winner is the one who has realized something new and based on it can adjust his position. The worst thing you can do in this situation is to end the discussion without starting it.
If you're still not interested just don't reply to this post and the discussion with you on this matter will be over.
If you are in favor of pro-choice, and you stand for it consistently, then you must show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
To reiterate my deductive argument:
T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.
There are four options here:
1. You show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
2. You advocate frivolous murder of people and that's morally normal for you. (And maybe you're in favor of negative eugenics, because why not?)
3. You show your inconsistency and essentially you have no reasoning to be in favor of pro-choice.
4. You agree with my argument because you can't argue with it and are in favor of pro-life.
I forgot to clarify that I don't care at all what positions anyone holds, what matters is the arguments, i.e. the reasoning behind those positions.
The issue of abortions. Pro-choice vs pro-life argument.
I'm wondering if we can support a reasoned argument on hot-topic as issue of abortions. Unfortunately I have often noticed that when engaging in arguments people tend to use rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies to defend their positions. I don't have a strict position on this issue, but since I know the majority is pro-choice on the abortion issue, then I'll take a pro-life position to warm up the discussion and try to argue it logically.
An important condition for participation in the discussion is not to use sophistry and other rhetorical tricks to defend your position or argue a different position. Straw man arguments, appeals to emotions, to the majority, to the law, to authority are all sophistry, which is not proof of anything. Also ideally do not use inductive arguments cuz they are not proofs. Although I don't expect to see a collection of deductive arguments in favour of pro-choice positions.
As they say you have to start with yourself, and I will formulate my position with a deductive logical argument that comes from a fork (T) - thesis with two options.
T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.
Any logical argument will work if we accept its premises. If you can prove that any of the premises are wrong, then the argument will not work.
I think all the primises are obvious except that the human zygote is a human being. And probably that's the premise that will be argued most often. I'll explain why I took this primis. Any moment when a non-human becomes a human being is arbitrary except for the very beginning - the zygote. Because this is the very moment when the human dna of one person of the mother and another human being of the father merge into one cell and give birth to a new organism. What species does this organism belong to? Homo sapiens - human being. (I will disclaim that I am an agnostic and religious positions on this issue are not important to me)
This moment when two objects (sperm and ovum) become one object (zygote) is the moment that sets all the conditions for the emergence of a new human being. And each of these two objects individually does not possess the full set of genetic code to form a human being. And when they merge, the genetic code of the mother and father is merged and it is from this point that human growth begins. Any subsequent moment is arbitrary. Zygote is just a stage of human development like any other. With each new stage we can acquire some new attributes. From puberty to adulthood, we mature, our brains develop, and we become smarter and more experienced and we're acquiring more and more attributes. It doesn't mean that at any stage a non-human suddenly became human. You can argue and prove it's not true. This could be interesting.
It may be noted that the form of my deductive argument can justify some cases of abortions. For example, in the case of a threat to the life of a woman in labour, cuz it is morally justifiable to murder in self-defence. It all depends on whether murder is morally permissible for you. You can say you don't think frivolous murders is immoral, and then there is no problem with abortion.
An important condition for participation in the discussion is not to use sophistry and other rhetorical tricks to defend your position or argue a different position. Straw man arguments, appeals to emotions, to the majority, to the law, to authority are all sophistry, which is not proof of anything. Also ideally do not use inductive arguments cuz they are not proofs. Although I don't expect to see a collection of deductive arguments in favour of pro-choice positions.
As they say you have to start with yourself, and I will formulate my position with a deductive logical argument that comes from a fork (T) - thesis with two options.
T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.
Any logical argument will work if we accept its premises. If you can prove that any of the premises are wrong, then the argument will not work.
I think all the primises are obvious except that the human zygote is a human being. And probably that's the premise that will be argued most often. I'll explain why I took this primis. Any moment when a non-human becomes a human being is arbitrary except for the very beginning - the zygote. Because this is the very moment when the human dna of one person of the mother and another human being of the father merge into one cell and give birth to a new organism. What species does this organism belong to? Homo sapiens - human being. (I will disclaim that I am an agnostic and religious positions on this issue are not important to me)
This moment when two objects (sperm and ovum) become one object (zygote) is the moment that sets all the conditions for the emergence of a new human being. And each of these two objects individually does not possess the full set of genetic code to form a human being. And when they merge, the genetic code of the mother and father is merged and it is from this point that human growth begins. Any subsequent moment is arbitrary. Zygote is just a stage of human development like any other. With each new stage we can acquire some new attributes. From puberty to adulthood, we mature, our brains develop, and we become smarter and more experienced and we're acquiring more and more attributes. It doesn't mean that at any stage a non-human suddenly became human. You can argue and prove it's not true. This could be interesting.
It may be noted that the form of my deductive argument can justify some cases of abortions. For example, in the case of a threat to the life of a woman in labour, cuz it is morally justifiable to murder in self-defence. It all depends on whether murder is morally permissible for you. You can say you don't think frivolous murders is immoral, and then there is no problem with abortion.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG